Philo
I do own a bible, several in fact. I am not sure what your point is.

What is your point Philo?

Can I use your forum Peter to share some recent reflections.

In Holy Week I attended the Rolling Stones Concert in Sydney, and the Vigil Easter Mass in my local parish. I was aware that I wore the same clothes to meet the occasion of both; being grand theatre - one shallow, supercilious and feeding a nostalgia for the past , the other a grand ritual, rich in meaning and purpose, drawing on the recounting of the past to make live the Presence in the present, to enliven and sustain the path of the future in loving action.

The performers of one were simply on the take; there were contracted arrangements delivered with a bare minimum of interaction and self giving to the audience.

The participants of the other served and enlivened the faithful in scripture, prayer and ritual that restates the Covenential relationship of God and his people.

The music of one was a touchstone of our liberal Western youth, quickly developed and simply performed, and continues to be at that level... with Mick, smart man that he is, amazing us at his 'youthful' exuberance and skinny hips at 63 years of age.

The music at the other was steeped in its source being Scripture's wonderful prose and poetry, and spoke of wonder, glory and praise to people across all ages and cultures.

I loved the Stones concert; but never again.. I do not need the experience.

The Mass is a hardy annual, preceded by 40 days of reflective penitence and followed by 50 days of anticipation and wonder till Pentecost. An event, the scope and eventual scale of which, cannot be matched by even the greatest of our event promoters. The power of which is beyond those great minds that limit themselves to a mechanistic, "truth is fact and must be measured", human existence.

Sells,
I was not adressing my post to you. However your reaction entreagues me. Have I touched upon a nerve of Pride? Perhaps you prefer not to quote the simple language from ancient thoughts that have been around for 2000+ years. Perhaps they has little purpose in the great philosophical debate among 21st Century Master Minds.

Someone earlier claimed I implied that you would walk by on the otherside of the road from an injured man. Nonsense it was a statement in my debate. But now perhaps I might just have second thoughts. Perhaps philosophically the impailed man did get his just reward from the religious heirarchy and legal intelligencia.

Sells,
My point: I was endeavouring to put together a biblical view that God speaks with one voice and one spirit to the purpose and expresson of his character in man. Though the spirit of God indwells each believer there is a single voice, character, attitude and action based in love that releases life and blessing. When we fully are at peace with God we will discover our true self.

Peter says ... "Ahh the dark gospel of the ecology movement."

If this statement doesn't mean to transcend above and beyond material existence then just what does it say? Firstly, when a theologian speaks, everything would be teddy (god) spiel which explains why it suggests something like deliver us from the evil darkness of ecology. Secondly, why?

We just need theologians to design a new intelligent teddy because there is a growing chorus of critics from different philosophical schools in the spiritual marketplace who insist that the concept of transcendence, or giving undue emphasis to "going beyond" fear and desire in pursuit of "enlightenment," inherently denies the unavoidable reality of our incarnated existence. i.e. the reality of our relationship to the earth, our bodies, and our emotions. This intelligently designed teddy should speak of causality, uncertainty, inseparability, conservation, complementarity, irreversibility, infinity, materialism, relativism and interconnection.

Big teddy cheerleaders pumping up the population doesn't make this task any easier either although certainly blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth ..... because it will not be humans but bacteria.

"Enlightenment inherently denies the 'unavoidable' reality of our incarnated existence".
Just what makes you, Keiran, assume that our incarnated existence is the ultimate, or most desirable, reality? Is not one of the primary purposes of the pursuit of enlightenment to gain the knowledge and spiritual power to ease suffering and to make our material existence more blissful, as a result of increased understanding? Enlightenment . . . whatever its various stages may be . . . does not have to mean a desertion of the human race, or an avoidance of responsibility. Many who have been regarded as sages throughout history have actively participated in their communities, and for the improvement of the natural environment. They did not all run off to live in caves. Does the "reality of our incarnated existence" mean that we are incapable of evolving into something more than what we currently are? Does it preclude the possibility of participating in our own spiritual and mental evolution? Your statement about "enlightenment denies reality" makes no sense. It seems to me to be a narrow and limiting assumption, unjustified by material reality itself.
"A growing chorus of critics from different philosophical schools"? What schools? What critics?